Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The idea originated (I believe) in France to prevent Parisian elitists from dominating elections. The intent for the US was to give a voice to the new "out lying" territories/states entering the union.
Where diversity, culture and type of work varies the least populated areas need a "equalizer' to prevent urban (cities) from making rules for places they don't understand.
How can someone who grew up and lives in NYC know what folks on a ranch in Montana need?
Never thought of it like that. If you divided a state like Florida into its 67 counties and said that each county was 1 vote for a statewide office like Governor, would it be fair to give Dade County only 1 vote and a more sparsely populated county (Lake) the same 1 vote as Dade?
Yup. But it's equality if all the Dade County voters decide their county's winner in a fair and open election.
What's the difference in a fair election between a county with 3,000 people, one with 30,000, and one with 3 million? Only the numbers, if everyone who wanted to vote voted and the final tally was accurate.
The numbers don't indicate inequality when the proper elector votes in the proper way in a republic. If every voter wasn't prevented or restricted when he voted, he had his say. When the system is impartial, the say is equal.
In every election that is contested, one must win and one must lose. By law. So as long as it's all fair and impartial, the number of electors makes no difference.
One elector per county is just as good as 10, or 100, or 1,000. All the extras would do is slow the process while making it more open to internal division.
And since we have a republic, not a direct democracy, electors are just fine as our representatives if everything about them and their selection is fair, open, equal and honest.
A fair elector would be obligated to vote the way the county decides, not himself or any boss over him, or any particular group over him.
When it comes to the number of counties, Florida falls somewhere in the middle. Texas has the most at 254- that's 90 counties more than #2, Georgia, which has 159, and Delaware the least- only 3.
When you have a large (area) and populated state like CA it becomes increasing evident that the coastal cities and elites rule the whole state.
What is happening with increasing regularity is urban areas and rural areas are politically divided and at either end of the spectrum. Rural folks do not like being told how to live. Urban environments need lots of rules to manage conditions. If you don't see the obvious divide, well there's no hope and you probably live in an urban area.
I live in a rural area in both FL and TN. Florida is becoming more and more like CA. Coastal urban areas with high concentrations of people. TN isn't like that, no coast and fewer "big" cities.
Elections will probably be decided by the suburban folks... and most of them left the cities for a "better" life. Their kids will be more "urban" and vote as such.
The presidency is a federal election versus your local and state elections.
The federal nature of the American Constitutional covenant enables the nation to function as a republic—thus specifically avoiding the dangers of a pure democracy. Republics exercise governmental authority through mediating representatives under the rule of law. Pure democracies on the other hand exercise governmental authority through the imposition of the will of the majority without regard for the concerns of any minority—thus allowing law to be subject to the whims, fashions, and fancies of men.
The essential philosophical and structural framework within which the Founding Fathers constructed their innovative scheme of national checks and balances, separation of powers, and mixed government was state confederation—or federalism.
The principle of federalism allows distinctive and individual communities to join together for a greater good without losing their essential distinctiveness and individuality. Instead of the states becoming a part of some larger amorphous union, under federalism they are able to unite in a symbiotic fashion so that the sum of their parts is greater than that of the whole.
The Founders designed federal system of the United States so that the nation could be, as John Adams described it, a “government of law, not of men.”
The rule of the majority does not always respect the rule of law... history has proven all too often that democracy is particularly susceptible to the urges and impulses of mobocracy.
Well said. States elect Presidents, not People. The design was that our State government would be our primary source of government, not the Feds. We are a loose collection of States, yet the Feds have changed the nature of that and have usurped way too much power.
The theory was that if you didn't like the politics, economics, or society of one state, you could move to another that was DIFFERENT and more aligned with your beliefs. It was NOT meant to be one big homogenous nation, politically. That is why the EC exists, and popular vote would be the final nail in the coffin for the U.S.
The urbanites (cities and burbs) which are all Progressive Democrat don't want diversity of thought. They want totalitarian, one party Democrat rule which will be OPPRESSIVE, and tyrannical.
It boils down to more rules or less rules. More rules lead to totalitarianism, less rules lead to anarchy. So what is the "modifier" in all of this experiment we call The United States of America? What moral virtue "contains" our tacit nature? and please do not confuse values with virtues. Your used car has a "value" and that changes every day, virtues do not change.
Our founders knew what it was and is clearly stated in the Preamble. When so many focus on the legal text of the constitution , it's important to know the "why" or the "how come".
All human knowledge is from experience and the nations of the world are created by the human values, born of experience. Some good, some not so good to outright evil. Our nation is not born of "experiences".
Watched his town hall. He's a smooth talker, and great delivery of old, tired liberal ideas; bigger government and less freedom with the exception of abortion, drugs, and LGBT issues.
What must concern all Americans, however, is his support of replacing the electoral college with a popular vote, and any politician who agrees.
The electoral college is genius within the Constitution, because it protects federal elections against mob rule, the tyranny of the majority.
In his interests in scrapping the electoral college, he prioritizes the short-term successes of his own party versus the big picture safeguard of our democracy. Deal breaker.
You may not like him, and that is ok, but his following is growing daily. I think this man is a breath of fresh air, intelligent as Hell, and poised. I can see him meeting with other world leaders and getting things done. He also has a track record of working across the aisle, something Donald Trump can not do.
I seriously may vote for him, that is, if he is the Democratic candidate. I am more impressed every time I see him.
I don't like how he imitates President Obama's speech patterns, ending each sentence with a strong sudden stop. I don't know if it's intentional or coincidental, but it's highly annoying
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
